Damien Comolli

[Sheik Yerbouti]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211849#msg1211849 date=1288914836]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42566.msg1211506#msg1211506 date=1288899520]
Selling Keane and Berbatov, at those prices, was the best thing Spurs ever did.
[/quote]

If their ambition as a club is more in line with being profitable than winning trophies, then yes you're right.
[/quote]

They've done better 'on the pitch' since they left haven't they?

 

[Woland]

For the purposes of this debate, what I'm going to do is go Wiki him, then google a load of articles, then decide what I think, then disregard the articles that disagree with my take and then use the rest as confirmation bias as to why I'm right, and then quote them and highlight bits that really make the point. I might even find other articles by the same people that show that they're right quite often, disregarding ones where they've been wrong.

I haven't had time to do this yet, but I'll be absolutely certain I'm correct and the facts will back me up 100% whichever side I've chosen by some time mid morning on Sunday.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211849#msg1211849 date=1288914836]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42566.msg1211506#msg1211506 date=1288899520]
Selling Keane and Berbatov, at those prices, was the best thing Spurs ever did.
[/quote]

If their ambition as a club is more in line with being profitable than winning trophies, then yes you're right.
[/quote]

Clubs grow slower than players. Sometimes you need to sell your best players to grow as a club in the long run. Sevilla is one example of a club who knows how and when to sell. Tottenham is another. They sold Berbatov, but became only stronger as a result.

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=42566.msg1211853#msg1211853 date=1288915126]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211849#msg1211849 date=1288914836]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42566.msg1211506#msg1211506 date=1288899520]
Selling Keane and Berbatov, at those prices, was the best thing Spurs ever did.
[/quote]

If their ambition as a club is more in line with being profitable than winning trophies, then yes you're right.
[/quote]

They've done better 'on the pitch' since they left haven't they?
[/quote]

More to do with the Manager than losing them. Berbatov's a bette rplayer than Crouch for example, so you could suggest they might be in an even better position had they kept him.

I take Ross' point that it was good business for them, and that's a model that works but at some point your ambition to be profitbale has to be mirrored with your ambition to win trophies too.

I read Henry and Ross' comments that they both love the 'Arsenal model'. Great, that's nice, they're profitable and have 60,000 coming to watch them every week. But what does that mean to your average supporter in the stand? Fuck all. No trophies in 7 years is what they're thinking about, not whether selling Adebayor cos he didn't fit into the wage structure was 'good business sense'.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211398#msg1211398 date=1288882635]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=42566.msg1211381#msg1211381 date=1288881104]
Nope. Comolli himself got the push from Tottenham in the end, which is one reason why I'm very undecided about the appointment. The other main reason is simply that this kind of set-up complicates a club's management structure and gives scope for endless "turf wars", another feature of the previous situation at Tottenham.
[/quote]


hmmm. i don't like the idea of such risk of upheaval should the Director of Football need to be replaced. surely the obvious way around that would be to appoint a Director of Football Direction, someone who can come in with a supreme vision of how all future Directors of Football should operate. a further safeguard - in the event of disaster - would be to create the position of Director of Direction of Football Direction, to guard against the risk of total chaos should the Director of Football Direction fail and have to be replaced.

no doubt some flippant idiot will cite the need for a Director of Direction of Direction of Football Direction, but to me it seems patently obvious that 3 levels of direction above the head coach is corrcet, and any more would be needless complication.
[/quote]

Ha! Made me smile.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211858#msg1211858 date=1288915678]

I read Henry and Ross' comments that they both love the 'Arsenal model'. Great, that's nice, they're profitable and have 60,000 coming to watch them every week. But what does that mean to your average supporter in the stand? Fuck all. No trophies in 7 years is what they're thinking about, not whether selling Adebayor cos he didn't fit into the wage structure was 'good business sense'.
[/quote]

That's exactly what I was getting at in my previous posts. There is every indication so far that the new owners are planning to pursue something very similar to the 'Arsenal model'. Question is, how do we feel about it as fans? Of course we can hope that Henry an co. manage to do it better than Arsenal themselves and they might - but so far we are far behind, with no big stadium and no Arsene Wenger.

The only thing that makes me more optimistic about this is the fact that NESV did guide Red Sox to two World Series titles in three years. Hopefully this means that they have some winner's aura about them, something that draws success. Let's face it, if we live the 'Arsenal model' AND win trophies in the process - none of us could wish for anything better, could we?

 

[StevieM]

The "arsenal" model relies on us not only identifying and buying youngsters who are likely to turn in to international class players, but also not buying mediocre old foreigners or premiership journeymen, but actually giving the young players enough time in competitive games to aid their development.

As such, it would be a welcome departure from the direction of not only the current manager but most of the previous ones we've had since we won the bloody league.

Comolli's record in transfers is no better than some of those managers. He' got some right and some wrong. It's certainly not much worse and at least it's a sign of a positive new direction.

Lets face it, the "arsenal" model is always going to be the one favoured by normal investors.

Comolli will be judged on his actions in good time.

A new manager will be essential though.

 

[Mistadobalina]

I really hope this guy knows what he's doing, and gets a bit of luck along the way too. Lord knows we need it.

 

[Hansern]

The thing is though, Wenger has money to spend. But he doesn't, because he's a stubborn fucker that wants to win the Premiership with this group of young players and not bring in experienced superstars on high wages.

So, there is nothing wrong with their Business model. It's more to do with the fact that Arsene doesn't do the obvious and sign some first teamers in key positions. And this is annoying my Arsenal mates to the extreme.

I think a mix of the Arsenal business model and some very experienced high profile players brought in, is the way forward.

Again, nothing wrong with the model itself. But we need a manager that can combine developing young talent and having experienced quality players aswell.

 

[King Binny]

One interpretation of NESV’s haste to add the former St Etienne director of football is that it gives them more time to search for Hodgson’s successor without worrying about replacing him before the January transfer window.

If Liverpool do have money to spend in the next transfer window, few would want the former Fulham boss to be the man to spend it.
With Comolli controlling the long-term transfer strategy it will avoid the next manager having to rid the club of even more of Hodgson’s dead wood.

It will certainly provide a level of stability that Liverpool have lacked in recent times, with every new boss leading a massive clear out of playing staff as they sought to shape the squad in their image.

The best solution to that, however, would be to appoint the right manager.

 

[kingjulian]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211374#msg1211374 date=1288880625]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=42566.msg1211361#msg1211361 date=1288879679]
One major advantage with a DOF is if the club decides to sack the manager. there is not the complete need for upheaval, or a desire to 'start again' like we have to every 5 years.

It insists that the club has one vision, which our managers have to aspire to.
[/quote]

and what about if a club decides to sack the director of football because his 'vision' isn't working?

or is it somehow impossible for a DOF to fail in that?
[/quote]

Wouldn't Henry have a role in validating that vision?

That is why he keeps insisting that it is a team of strategist who have to make these decisions.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=Binny link=topic=42566.msg1211986#msg1211986 date=1288944430]

One interpretation of NESV’s haste to add the former St Etienne director of football is that it gives them more time to search for Hodgson’s successor without worrying about replacing him before the January transfer window.

If Liverpool do have money to spend in the next transfer window, few would want the former Fulham boss to be the man to spend it.
With Comolli controlling the long-term transfer strategy it will avoid the next manager having to rid the club of even more of Hodgson’s dead wood.

It will certainly provide a level of stability that Liverpool have lacked in recent times, with every new boss leading a massive clear out of playing staff as they sought to shape the squad in their image.

The best solution to that, however, would be to appoint the right manager.

[/quote]

I think that makes a lot of sense. I am positive Comolli will not allow any more Koncheskys and Poulsens to come in this winter. And the search for a new manager might take weeks or months, so it makes sense that they want the transfer decisions to be made by someone who will almost certainly be at the club for a long time.

Where is this quote from, btw?

 

[gene hughes]

Well, I expect we'll be buying a player or two from the French league in Winter and perhaps a couple more in the summer.

Also the German league keeps being refered to as the place for 'value' so maybe we'll get a couple of fuckers from there.

 

[Buddha]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211858#msg1211858 date=1288915678]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=42566.msg1211853#msg1211853 date=1288915126]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42566.msg1211849#msg1211849 date=1288914836]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42566.msg1211506#msg1211506 date=1288899520]
Selling Keane and Berbatov, at those prices, was the best thing Spurs ever did.
[/quote]

If their ambition as a club is more in line with being profitable than winning trophies, then yes you're right.
[/quote]

They've done better 'on the pitch' since they left haven't they?
[/quote]

I read Henry and Ross' comments that they both love the 'Arsenal model'. Great, that's nice, they're profitable and have 60,000 coming to watch them every week. But what does that mean to your average supporter in the stand? Fuck all. No trophies in 7 years is what they're thinking about, not whether selling Adebayor cos he didn't fit into the wage structure was 'good business sense'.
[/quote]

Thing is Ryan, that barren period has coincided with building and financing a new shiny stadium that places them in an incredibly strong financial position going forward now. They've also been pretty competitive during that time despite not winning any silverware (quite apart from the sexy football they most often serve up). They've also had to do it whilst competing with teams limited (or not so) by completely different parameters (Chelsea, Man Utd, and now City) and not so dependent on financing a stadium.

Just because they've had a barren spell of late whilst rebuilding another young squad and building a stadium, it doesn't mean the drought will continue. They might just be set now for a trophy-laden run.

Arsenal surely remain the blueprint for us moving forward. If we can build a new stadium, service the related debt, rebuild a young squad and remain competitive in the top four until all is done I'll be delighted. Only after all that is done would I start to expect trophies on a regular basis, as I imagine Arsenal fans feel they ave a right to deserve now. With the new UEFA financial rules kicking in soon, it's the likes of Arsenal (and hopefully in time Liverpool) that are best placed to fill their cabinet.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211374#msg1211374 date=1288880625]
and what about if a club decides to sack the director of football because his 'vision' isn't working?

or is it somehow impossible for a DOF to fail in that?
[/quote]

It's very much possible, but it takes much longer for a strategic vision to be proven wrong. DOF and manager work in different time dimensions - the former is thinking in seasons, while the latter is always thinking about the next game. Managers can quickly lose control of the team and get fired after just a string of bad results. DOFs design and implement a long-term vision whose validity (or lack thereof) can be judged only based on long-term trends.

A DOF is likely to survive several managers, if the ownership and leadership of the club remains stable. Think of Galliani, who has been the vice-president and de-facto director of all football matters at AC Milan since the 80's. Of course if ownership or leadership of the club changes (like it happens at Madrid and Barca every few years), DOF would usually go down together with the departing leadership because a new president or owner usually wants to pursue a new strategy. That's why we all saw several totally different strategies being tried at Real Madrid in the last few seasons, from the original galácticos to Dutch invasion and then back to the galácticos (only this time younger, hungrier ones + a superstar coach). Obviously, such frequent shifts in strategy are not good for the results of the club.

 

[gene hughes]

Visions don't 'not work'. That's why they're called 'visions'.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212106#msg1212106 date=1288953398]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211374#msg1211374 date=1288880625]
and what about if a club decides to sack the director of football because his 'vision' isn't working?

or is it somehow impossible for a DOF to fail in that?
[/quote]

It's very much possible, but it takes much longer for a strategic vision to be proven wrong. DOF and manager work in different time dimensions - the former is thinking in seasons, while the latter is always thinking about the next game. Managers can quickly lose control of the team and get fired after just a string of bad results. DOFs design and implement a long-term vision whose validity (or lack thereof) can be judged only based on long-term trends.

A DOF is likely to survive several managers, if the ownership and leadership of the club remains stable. Think of Galliani, who has been the vice-president and de-facto director of all football matters at AC Milan since the 80's. Of course if ownership or leadership of the club changes (like it happens at Madrid and Barca every few years), DOF would usually go down together with the departing leadership because a new president or owner usually wants to pursue a new strategy. That's why we all saw several totally different strategies being tried at Real Madrid in the last few seasons, from the original galácticos to Dutch invasion and then back to the galácticos (only this time younger, hungrier ones + a superstar coach). Obviously, such frequent shifts in strategy are not good for the results of the club.
[/quote]


but there are plenty of managers who act in the long-term aren't there? what do DOFs do in the long-term that a great visionary manager like ferguson or wenger doesn't?

also, can you put into practical terms what these football visions or strategies *actually* are?

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1212123#msg1212123 date=1288954318]
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212106#msg1212106 date=1288953398]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1211374#msg1211374 date=1288880625]
and what about if a club decides to sack the director of football because his 'vision' isn't working?

or is it somehow impossible for a DOF to fail in that?
[/quote]

It's very much possible, but it takes much longer for a strategic vision to be proven wrong. DOF and manager work in different time dimensions - the former is thinking in seasons, while the latter is always thinking about the next game. Managers can quickly lose control of the team and get fired after just a string of bad results. DOFs design and implement a long-term vision whose validity (or lack thereof) can be judged only based on long-term trends.

A DOF is likely to survive several managers, if the ownership and leadership of the club remains stable. Think of Galliani, who has been the vice-president and de-facto director of all football matters at AC Milan since the 80's. Of course if ownership or leadership of the club changes (like it happens at Madrid and Barca every few years), DOF would usually go down together with the departing leadership because a new president or owner usually wants to pursue a new strategy. That's why we all saw several totally different strategies being tried at Real Madrid in the last few seasons, from the original galácticos to Dutch invasion and then back to the galácticos (only this time younger, hungrier ones + a superstar coach). Obviously, such frequent shifts in strategy are not good for the results of the club.
[/quote]


but there are plenty of managers who act in the long-term aren't there? what do DOFs do in the long-term that a great visionary manager like ferguson or wenger doesn't?

also, can you put into practical terms what these football visions or strategies *actually* are?
[/quote]

Yes, there are great visionary managers like Ferguson and Wenger who can successfully combine long-term strategic vision with tactical acumen and day-to-day running of the club. But there are no enough of them for all teams. They are rare precisely because they are great visionary managers. They don't come around often. And we don't have one.

In fact I would go as far as to say that Rafa's time here is proof that a top-class coach does not necessarily become a good manager. It's telling that Rafa made his most disastrous transfer mistakes precisely after he got rid of the last obstacles to his power. Inter will be smart not to give him any powers beyond that of a football coach.

 

[peterhague]

which of benitez's transfers are you referring to and which increases in his power do you think were instrumental in allowing them to happen, and why?

 

[kingjulian]

Is this the start of really really long posts?

I think it's best if we all moved on from Rafa's time. He is gone, He lost his job and we now have the players we have.

Some people think he did well while he was with us. Some people say the same but with some caveats. Then there is the diametrically opposite views to those two. No body is going to change their view on this regardless of how many long posts we go through.

 

[rurikbird]

No more long posts.

Peter, I meant the time after Rick Parry got his position weakened and ultimately left, while Rafa strengthened his position. Our last 2 summer transfer windows were disastrous.

 

[peterhague]

so johnson, aquilani and kyrgiakos: which of benitez's new powers were important in allowing him to make those signings, and why?

 

[Rosco]

it's a trick question.

 

[rurikbird]

Well, as far as I know Rafa had no real counter-weight in transfer decisions after Parry left. Can you tell me where you are trying to lead with all these questions? I haven't got all day.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212173#msg1212173 date=1288961212]
Well, as far as I know Rafa had no real counter-weight in transfer decisions after Parry left. Can you tell me where you are trying to lead with all these questions? I haven't got all day.
[/quote]

i was wondering if you could justify your opinion, that's all.

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1212180#msg1212180 date=1288961731]
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212173#msg1212173 date=1288961212]
Well, as far as I know Rafa had no real counter-weight in transfer decisions after Parry left. Can you tell me where you are trying to lead with all these questions? I haven't got all day.
[/quote]

i was wondering if you could justify your opinion, that's all.
[/quote]

Have I?

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212185#msg1212185 date=1288962392]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42566.msg1212180#msg1212180 date=1288961731]
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=42566.msg1212173#msg1212173 date=1288961212]
Well, as far as I know Rafa had no real counter-weight in transfer decisions after Parry left. Can you tell me where you are trying to lead with all these questions? I haven't got all day.
[/quote]

i was wondering if you could justify your opinion, that's all.
[/quote]

Have I?
[/quote]

nimo.

 

[King Binny]

ROY HODGSON is happy with the arrival of transfer expert Damien Comolli – but said: “I had no say in his appointment.

“That would have defeated the object which is to put a team together they want, not for me to populate the club with friends.

“But we have a good man. Damien Comolli had great success at Tottenham and St Etienne so I’m delighted to welcome him here.â€

Hodgson dismissed the idea new owner John Henry won’t allow him to buy older players, adding: “If, for example, Mark Schwarzer comes up on a free contract at 34 you don’t say it’s not a good deal because he is not 22, you discuss it.â

 

[manwithnoname]

As I said earlier, anything that undermines Budgie, and ensures that he won't be able to waste money on the type of shit he likes to buy, is a very, very good thing

 

[kingjulian]

Oh dear...Mark Schwarzer?